Talk:Michael Cremo

Removed the pseudoscience reference at the outset of the first paragraph

I trinsic1 removed the pseudoscience reference at the outset of the first paragraph. Labeling work in this fashion marginalizes Cremeo's Book with a loaded word which is not nessary at the outset. People need to come to there own conclusions of whether its pseudoscince by doing research.

Then Paul H. Undid revision 573482067 because it is involved in the censorship of valid evaluations of recognized experts.

I trinsic1 undid the revision. If it was censorship I would have removed all instances of pseudoscience. I did not, I removed the first pseudoscience reference because it labels the work at the outset which prevents people from looking at all of the material in the article. I feel pseudoscience is a loaded word, used by people who emotionally respond to work it finds not acceptable to ones own beliefs. You will notice that the main document has references to the pseudoscience reference, That is enough. The person changing my edit Paul H. does so with false motives, claiming it was censorship which it fact was not since the pseudoscience claim is in the main text.

Talk radio and WP:UNDUE

If Cremo's highest profile is that he regularly features on talk-radio (notorious for its low standards and the favoured venue for a large range of WP:FRINGE views), then this doesn't say much for him. I will attempt to rewrite this sentence so that it more accurately characterises the forum on which Cremo is presenting his ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue

A lot of material presented here is ether undue or does not provide WP:YESPOV on the subject. The subject of FA is not as notable as well but if anything, should be presented from a neutral point of view. Wikidās ॐ 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Cremo passes any reasonable interpretation of WP:N, as I explained in my last edit summary to the article. But I do agree that the article was going a little overboard with the criticism sections. Zagalejo^^^ 07:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of WP:UNDUE, why are we giving about as much space for his being on Coast to Coast AM as we do for the entire scientific community's rejection of his work? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be some balance on any article and especially on WP:BLP articles. The section of criticism is certainly off balance, besides being full of dubious sources. So clearly to comply with req of BLP one should ether merge it into some pseudo science related article or keep it in complience with BLP - and that means no dubious sources and no slant on way or another. Read up Wikidās ॐ 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a point when we just started piling things on. It should be sufficient to simply explain why his ideas have been criticized by the scientific community. I think the last paragraph (as of this edit) does that well. If we try to throw in every negative comment we can find, the prose suffers, and the article starts to look like an attack piece. Zagalejo^^^ 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've written about any article in Wikipedia in a long time. I felt it necessary to say I thought this Wikipedia article on Cremo is a total hatchet job. Cremo has been a speaker at academic conferences, so someone out there thinks his information is worth listening to. As to the point of him cherry picking, what archeologist doesn't present the facts and source materials that support his arguments? Cremo certainly does an adequate job of presenting the fact that others seriously disagree with him. He doesn't hide that in the slightest. This argument is offensive and makes Wikipedia look like it is written by political hacks. If this article isn't cleaned up, it is a serious black mark on Wikipedia, more than on Cremo. This is like the attack dogs have been let loose on Cremo. They say NOTHING of his credentials, except the innuendo that because he happens to also have a religious background, he must be an illogical and unscientific thinker. I challenge any of the critics here to write an 800 page book that covers a wide subject as well and thoroughly as Cremo and Thompson did. The critics here pretend that the book is pulled out of Cremo's and Thompson's rear ends. Instead it is footnoted up the ying yang. Cremo and Thompson pulled the facts out of peer-reviewed papers. Like any authors, they choose to interpret the material in their own way. The critics here give the total impression that Cremo's POV is invalid simply because he has a religious connection, and therefore he must be incapable of truly rational thought; God keeps getting in his way. That is amazing they should suggest that so strongly, since almost all the early archeologists - the ones referred to in the history of archeology - had staunchly religious backgrounds. Without those white Anglo-Saxon Christians of several ilks, it is debatable if archeology would even exist today. I would even posit that archeology is not even a science (I've made this argument elsewhere), but that it is a history discipline that uses some control over site management in order to control layer referencing and a record of artifact location, plus a good history of the art of ceramic development, and that then sends some of the artifacts to true scientists - who work in labs that actually quantify data - for running C14 and thermoluminescent dating. The archeologoists are no more scientists than I was when I would send steel strap samples to a lab to test their yield strengths. Farming out the real science does not make archeologists scientists. A young archeology student I know has faculty in her department at UCLA wanting them to stop putting so much science into archeology. C14 is the main claim of archeology to be a science. But when they don't even do the lab work themselves, but only do the interpreting of the results, how is that science? An art historian does the same thing, but doesn't go around claiming he is a scientist.

The attack dogs who authored this Cremo page left out mention of how much sourcing Cremo and Thompson did; the critics instead cherry picked their "facts" about Cremo to suit their own ends, spinning and spinning to try make Cremo look like a fool. Geez, is that the pot calling the kettle black? I'd remind the critics of the warning, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous [sic]." The lack of balance is simply egregious.

In spite of the evolutionists' belief that everything is covered in evolution, that all the gaps are well understood, that simply has never been the case. Missing bits have been there since the beginning, and many bits are simply ignored. The history of paleontology is a history of scads of extrapolation based on a minimum of artifacts. When all the history of man is supported by less bones than would fill a good sized dumpster, we need to understand that any understanding we have now is almost certainly inadequate and virtually sure to be overturned some day. Perhaps some day soon. Every year scientific "realities" are thrown out in one discipline or another. One day something is true and scientists swear up and down it is so, and the next day someone shoots it out of the saddle. And the following day the scientists present the new reality as if it had always been their point of view, hoping that no one can remember things like: mountains were thought to be formed by the wrinkling of the crust as the Earth cooled and shrank, or when Venus was fully expected to be reasonably Earth-like. Scientists today laugh and say, "Well that was then; we are too smart for that now." But that is exactly the attitude science had in 1955 when those two things were believed. What of today's science will be shown to be 100% wrong in the next 556 years, by the year 2067? Cremo and Thompson pointed out specific artifacts that science had swept under the carpet long ago, buried in museum basements, and hoped would simply go away. It is scientists who cherry pick, when they don't include the "forbidden" bits that Cremo and Thompson resurrected. It is not possible to pull these anomalies out of the dustbin of history without looking like cherry picking - but it was scientists who, in the first place, cherry picked them out of existence in the first place. And now when someone turns them up, he is attacked as the cherry picker. It is actually to be expected, since the status quo has a lot invested in the current paradigms and a lot to lose if some anomalies point out how wrong science might have been for the last 100 years or more. That is a lot of ivory tower careers threatened and a lot of peer-reviewed papers that might prove to be wrong. When ad hominem attacks like this article is the best Wikipedia can do, no wonder so many people look at references to Wikipedia as a joke.

While I am not a very religious person myself, I agree with the gist of Dr. Francisco Esquivel's points, that the certainty presented by the defenders of the atheistic view of science are not the only view, and they should not be allowed to hammer down someone who has spirituality or religion as part of their approach, just because someone else's approach is wider than their own. After all, if the single issue of "Do humans have souls" were ever shown to be a fact, much of the atheistic scientific view would be thrown on the trash heap - and all hell might break loose in the halls of science, as issue after issue would have to be reconsidered. That is not to say that the present attack dogs who authored this article would accept any proof of the soul whatsoever. They'd deny it to their dying breaths - and would I am sure even brag here that such would be the case. It took science a very long time to step out from the skirt of Mother Church, and they fervently fight any possibility of letting the Pope back into things. Like the catastrophists who predated Darwin and Lyell, they would simply die off and be replaced by thinkers of the new reality. Cremo and (the late) Thompson happen to think we all have souls, so their attempt at understanding tries to incorporate the soul into the bigger picture. The authors apparently try to pretend that the soul has already been proven to not exist. I challenge them to show such a peer-reviewed paper.--SteveGinIL (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Splitting up the article

It looks like the article to contain all the critical material needs to be merged, at least the section of it on FA. Otherwise it needs to be reported to the BLP taskforce for non compliance.Wikidās ॐ 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand where the material would fit in Evolutionary history of life. That merge would never stick. Zagalejo^^^ 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe a sub article or an article for the book itself? The book however is about Evolutionary history of life, even I have not read it (sorry). Wikidās ॐ 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be "about Evolutionary history of life", but it is a 'tiny minority viewpoint about Evolutionary history of life' and so should not be included in that article. As to splitting the book off into a new article, I don't really think there's enough notability for two articles. Cremo is notable pretty-near-solely for the views that this book are the main embodiment of. Further, the 'overlap' & 'context' criteria of WP:MERGE would appear to work against it. The simple fact of the matter is that Cremo is known principally for the views in that book, so an article on him cannot escape from giving WP:DUE weight to the criticism of his views contained in that book. If you make your career out of telling large chunks of the scientific community that it's wrong, then you have to expect to take your knocks -- both in real life & on your wikipedia article (as much of the coverage of you will be negative). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the main point is not WP:DUE but the principles of WP:BLP. I suggest that an article that is solely or mainly about criticism of a book that a person co-authored and is not his exclusive research can not exist. The policy is:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;"

Thus just comply with it and do not "overwhelm the article" with it especially if reliable secondary sources are not that reliable or WP:V. If you insist on making it a coatrack the material will just be removed, even if the COAT is accidentally evolved through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and WP:NOT makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned.Wikidās ॐ 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP closely echoes (and directly cites) WP:DUE: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." The article therefore should give proportionate space to the majority (scientific) viewpoint, and avoid giving disproportionate space to minority (Hindu creationist and paranormalist) views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Create a separate 'scientific' article, this is BLP, do not make a coatrack out of this article. Not acceptable or is it your agenda? Wikidās ॐ 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Cremo has made a career out of making pseudoscientific claims, so the scientific viewpoint is directly relevant. It makes no more sense to "create a separate 'scientific' article" than it does to 'create a separate Hindu creationist article' or 'a separate paranormalist article'. Being a BLP does not shield the subject of an article from WP:DUE weight to criticism that is relevant to their notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In truth since I know the guy he has made a career out being Gaudiya Vaisnava and its religious presentation. He only co-authored the book, that was in most written and researched by late Thompson. Even if he made his way trough 'pseudo science' -- still it will not qualify to have not-neutral or bias in the BLP. Wikidās ॐ 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If he is not notable for this book, then what is he notable for? I have seen no articulation of an alternate notability, let alone third-party sources to substantiate it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - here you go (you probably do not even know what was his name in Hare Krishna movement) Wikidās ॐ 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the references reliable?

I have not heard of Tom Morrow. Does anyone knows him? Is he just a school teacher or is he notable? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

662 Hogskin Valley Rd Washburn TN 37888-1735 - is it some sort of a home address? If he is not are there any other reliable reviews to support the claims. --Wikidās ॐ 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was published in the RNCSE, which is published by the National Center for Science Education, and is considered to be a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay so he is just a school teacher. No credentials, no doctorate degree. An opinion expressed in a 'reliable source', probably would not fly at WP:RSN. Wikidās ॐ 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your substantiation for claiming that he's "just a school teacher" and has "no credentials, no doctorate degree". It seems highly unlikely that an article in the field of anthropology would be published by NCSE (whose executive director is herself an anthropologist) if it wasn't up to scratch. By all means take it to WP:RS/N, but it would appear to be at least as solid as anything else in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education founded by teachers and have many people working and writing for it who have no credentials. Surely there is a slant in the presentation since almost the sole purpose was to attack anyone with religious agenda. I hope you do not suggest that the slant of the National Center for Science Education is the majority view. Certainly no reliable sources to support this view, it can be however mentioned is passing as a single point of view. Wikidās ॐ 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be bloody daft. The NCSE has heavyweight scientific credentials and backing -- see National Center for Science Education#Staff and supporters. So yes, the viewpoint they are expressing is most certainly the majority viewpoint of the scientific community. Your claim that "the sole purpose was to attack anyone with religious agenda" is fallacious as the NCSE has a long history of working with religious scientists, a point that is clearly noted in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists (Expanded Ed, p354), and includes prominent Theistic evolutionists (e.g. Keith B. Miller & Kenneth R. Miller) among its supporters. As to your claim that it has "many people working and writing for it who have no credentials" -- I would suggest that you substantiate this claim with sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that is not being polite at all. I guess this is the time to mention that in the above you voted to delete the article and only reason you wanted to keep it is to make a coatrack out of the article and that was the only reason that you changed you vote from delete to weak keep. here So who is being daft here? The LEDE of their article states that their purpose is teaching of evolutionary biology and opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools. So obviously they will have a bias towards the subject of this article. Clear case of coatrack and it is ESPECIALLY not acceptable in the case of BLP! Wikidās ॐ 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW one is not obliged to support any statements of the talk pages with sources, but National Center for Science Education is absolutely not a neutral source. It is obvious. Your suggestion that it is most certainly the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is unfounded and in itself not neutral. The whole point is WP:N. How neutral are you if you wanted to delete this entry and only agreed to keep it so that you can use it as a coatrack for specific education related attacks? Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas' comments on this talk page are certainly making me question his or her agenda concerning this article. Regardless, he or she has failed to present any kind of convincing case for substantial overhaul of the article. ClovisPt (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I made myself painfully clear. WP:BLP requires good references and neutral presentation of the same. Neutral means that all sides are presented and no undue weight is given. The only requirement and underlining principle of BLP is 'do not harm'. Thank you for asking. I am working and specialising in BLPs of current Gaudiya Vaishnavas and have particular interest in this guy, since I know him well and know well how this book was created. So... can we agree to be neutral? Wikidās ॐ 17:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas: given your gross misrepresentations of NCSE & of WP:BLP and your gross violation of WP:AGF, I have nothing more to say to you on the subject here. RNCSE, and the articles contained in it, are WP:RS. If you want to dispute that, then take it to WP:RS/N. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith where I see no evidence otherwise. I guess WP:BLP explains it all. Maybe you should wait for him to die to make sure you can make article less neutral? Yes the publication can be taken as RS but only with complementing other views as in WP:YESPOV. Please do not try to intimidate me with personal attacks, you well know the policies on this. Wikidās ॐ 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was recently looking up the findings in the Bay of Cambay. In the article I found [http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm 9,500-Year-Old City Found Underwater Off India], it uses statements made by Cremo, Graham Hancock, and Linda Moulton Howe. The statements made by Cremo would seem laughable if he had no scientific credibility. So I looked up to see who he was, as well as the other people sited in the article. I often read the discussion/talk sections of the Wikipedia page on a topic to see if there is debate about something. After reading this "debate" I believe that the Wikipedia article on Cremo should focus more on his theories and works rather than examining his criticisms. The article gives the reader a negative point of view about Cremo. Even if Cremo is totally wrong in every way, it is important to know who he is and what he has done. So readers can gain more knowledge (isn't that the point of Wikipedia?). If he has been proven wrong or has "crazy" theories, it will reveal itself. However controversial someones theories or achievements are, it is impossible to understand them if your source of information is opinionated. This is the problem with a user submitted source. Or most sources for that matter. I am very skeptical and arrive upon opinions based on many different sources. I am becoming more familiar with media blackouts of certain topics, which makes finding alternate news EXTREMELY important. Obvious advice for people looking for info: -Use many sources and form your own opinions

Obvious advice for people having a web argument: -Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one and they all stink. You don't want to smell his any more than he wants to smell yours.

I hope my writings have had a positive impact on the Michael Cremo wikipedia article. If not, Sorry!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlallo (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

www.spiritofmaat.com does not appear to be a WP:RS, and its article appears to exaggerate the certainty of the dating of the find. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of reviews

We should not be using reviews from the author's website. I used Google to try to find the original, and Google Scholar only came up with this rtf article which shows how the site has misused reviews in the past: [1] Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- however statement "the challenging nature of the work was appreciated by some of the academics" is factual. Do you have any other way to keep it neutral as is the requirement for BLP? Wikid^as© 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I have added some statement that just records the fact that 'the nature' of challenge was appreciated by 'some' academics. If no other sources found to expand it. Wikid^as© 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed the statement as misrepresenting the source -- which declares the book's evidence to be "far from" convincing and "more historical and sociological than scientific". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Education

Can anyone find and list Cremo's scientific degrees/education/qualifications? There is a short blurb on his education, but it doesn't specify which degrees he holds. --Pstanton (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In my five years of association with Cremo at the ISKCON temple in San Diego, neither he nor anyone else, including Thompson, ever represented him as having any academic credentials. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Message from Dr. Francisco Esquivel

With all respect to Wikipedia author or editors. Like a Humanistic scholar, I found this article on Dr. Cremo view like tipical partidistic of the materialistic optic; like those so calle skceptical thinkers, whose are atheistic and gross materialistics. But this is no scientific or philosophical objetive people. So, Cremo work had been review in the top most promiments archology journals and many erudites appreaciate his work. Also, he is a European Archologistics Society and the Science History Association member, he earned a Ph D in Honoris Causa in philosphy of science at end. Any coolhead independent intelectual can appraciate his achievements.

Regards.

Dr. Franciso Esquivel Reyes. M.C. Ph. D

in Organical Quimic from Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Saltillo, Coah.

Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.15.23 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article has to be improved and present a more comprehensive and balanced info on Michael Cremo and his work. I hope to see this improvement over time. If you have citable resources, you can ask for the aid of an experienced Wikipedian (who knows the style, guidelines and syntax) to make the edits you see fit. John Hyams (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Hidden History Hidden Agenda

If Wikipedia is going to cite the letter Hidden History Hidden Agenda (footnoted to this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html), then they should include the author's response, http://reocities.com/Athens/olympus/2855/cremo.html, which was not answered by Lepper. Amalag (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The latter does not appear to be WP:RS, probably violates WP:SELFPUB, so probably should not be included. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a citation of criticism of the author's book, why should there not be a link where the author answers that criticism? All reviews and rebuttals are published in the book Forbidden Archeology's Impact. Should that be mentioned to maintain neutrality.

So the following is wrong with this article:

1. All reviews cited and paraphrased are negative. The slant of this wikipedia article is that all qualified scientists have dismissed the book. However this is not the case, the author has provided dozens of excerpts which are positive: http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/science/rev.html Why are none of those included? They contain full citations.

2. The first sentence of the article mentions the author and the book he has written and contains a footnote to a negative review of the book on the book's impact. Not even a direct link to the book. We don't need a citation of a review of the book on the book to tell us what the book's premise is. So what is the purpose in bringing this footnote? It is only relevant if in a section covering negative reviews of the book he published on reviews of his first book.

3. He appeared on the one hour NBC show "Mysterious Origin's of Man", Sunday February 25th, 1996Amalag (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:DUE, WP:PSTS & WP:MOSLINK. Self-published 'defences' of fringe positions are generally not acceptable. If you wish to cite information in Cremo's published work then that would be more acceptable. That "All reviews cited and paraphrased are negative" probably reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources hold such views. A cherry-picked listing of brief, context-less and generally equivocal quotes does not refute this. Wikipedia cites (preferably secondary, e.g. a review) sources for information contained in the article and does not give "direct links[s]" in the body of an article. That he featured in the crank-fest The Mysterious Origins of Man is hardly a plus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check WP:NPOV, stop calling people "cranks" just becuase they say something different than your own beliefs. WebofLife (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits

I reverted "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest"

First, this is an inaccurate description of the book as it suggests that it is, well, just an evaluation of papers from peer reviewed journals. Unless my memory is very faulty, that's not an accurate description of the book. I don't recall how many genuine peer reviewed papers are used, but there is a lot of material in it that can't be described that way. "Considered effectively these...suggest" is the editor's opinion, or Cremo's opinion, but can't be stated as Wikipedia's opinion.

Likewise, "Due to their anomalous character (contradicting as they do current models of human evolution from less advanced primates) these research papers have been discarded by the scientific establishment." was stated as fact, - the earlier wording was better.

The Tim Murray material is just copied from Cremo's website and is of course cherry picked. It appears that the editor adding it hasn't actually read the review and certainly hasn't sourced it properly (what issue, year, title, etc) so that others can check it. We need to know what else Murray wrote before we can be sure that we are fairly representing his opinion. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Thanks for replying. First of all I would like to tell you that the book deals only with peer reviewed scientific studies. There is no literature discussed in the book which is not of this calibre. You may be familiar with Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' in which he explains that in normal scientific procedure evidence is 'cherry-picked' (to use your phrase) in order to fit the current paradigm. Anomalies to the existing paradigm are put to one side (my choice of term is 'discarded') until a time when the current paradigm proves itself to be inadequate in explaining the data. Forbidden Archeology is a review of the scientific literature focusing on those studies which Kuhn calls 'anomalous'. The authors, of course, are seeking to support the hypothesis that human beings have existed on the earth for much longer than the current paradigm allows. However, they only use academically conventional scientific literature to do this. In this respect I think they present a powerful case. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about their methods. Tim Murray is a respected archeologist and would not have published one of Cremo's papers in one of his books had he not felt the paper met adequate standards. So I must contest your claim that the statement "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is innaccurate. I ask you again, in what way are these statements inaccurate? You say that there is a lot of material in the book that cannot be described that way. Please present evidence. Similarly when i say "Due to their anomalous character (contradicting as they do current models of human evolution from less advanced primates) these research papers have been discarded by the scientific establishment." this is also uncontroversial. The papers are not discussed by the scientific community because a consensus has been reached on a provisional model of human evolution which these papers directly contradict. Therefore they are discarded (at least for the moment). On the other hand the current wording states that the book has been criticized by scholars for ignorance of basic archeology. If Cremo is ignorant of basic archaeology why is he a member of two learned bodies, the European Association of Archaeologists and the World Archeological Congress? Furthermore why would an established, respected figure like Tim Murray include a paper by Cremo in his book Time and Archaeology, 1999, published by Routledge. You may not like his views but one shouldn't diminish the man's achievements which include a dozen papers in learned academic journals and many, many lectures at universities around the world. I do nonetheless agree with your last remark that Murray's review quote should be sourced. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The EAA is a "Membership-based association open to all archaeologists and other related or interested individuals or bodies". The WAC doesn't even add those caveats, it says it is open to all members of the public. So his memberships of those simply reflect his desire to belong to them, although his membership seems to be being used incorrectly to give him credibility.

As for the statements you refer to, they are original research by our definition at WP:NOR.

And as for the contents of the book, I'll have to get back to you as I'm about to leave where I'm staying and will be travelling all day. Tomorrow hopefully, but I would like to know how you know that, for instance, the 1820 material from the American Journal of Science can be called peer reviewed as we use the term today. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

EAA membership is open to non-archaeologists but only in the form of an associate membership. That is because the EAA is an association of professional archaeologists. It publishes the European Journal of Archaeology. Cremo actually describes himself as a historian and philosopher of science. This would explain why he has had a review of one of his books in the British Journal for the History of Science and why he delivered a paper at the twentieth International Congress for History of Science in Liege, Belgium. But to be a member of the EAA you have to be considered a de facto archaeologist. As for WAC membership, I think it is enough that he delivered a paper at the third congress of 1993 from which time his membership dates. I don't see how membership of these bodies is "being used incorrectly to give him credibility". If he had no credibility he wouldn't be invited to talk at universities all around the world. Yes, all the research on which Cremo bases his book is from scientific journals. The American Journal of Science is, according to their website "...an important source for seminal American scientific papers and received top ranking in 2003 for peer reviewed journals in the field of earth sciences." Peer-reviewed scientific journals, it may be recalled, go back to 1660 with the founding of the Royal Society.

Neither of the reviewers cited as 'scholars of the mainstream archaeological and paleoanthropological communities' who have determined Cremo's work as pseudoscience are as such. Wade Tarzia is a Professor of English and has no background in science. Noretta Koertge is a chemist turned philosopher of science and has no training in any relevant scientific field. On the other hand, Tim Murray, who is responsible for giving Cremo the most credibility is a former Chair Professor of Archaeology at La Trobe University and currently Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

You have not yet answered the question as to why the following statement is inaccurate, "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." This is not an opinion, it is a summary evaluation of the papers which Cremo and Thompson cite and which support the thesis of Forbidden Archeology. And, yes, Forbidden Archeology is a piece of original research. The wikipedia ban on original research refers to statements of editors which cannot be referred to printed sources or which draw conclusions that cannot be inferred from those printed sources. Neither is true in this case. The statement "Collectively considered, these anomalous papers suggest that humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is the explicit thesis of Forbidden Archeology and it is backed up (which you will discover if you actually read the book) admirably. In your original statement you say, "I don't recall how many genuine peer reviewed papers are used, but there is a lot of material in it that can't be described that way." It is not clear to me whether you have read the book or not but you have not accurately represented the contents of the book. The book only concerns itself with an evaluation of scientific papers. Therefore the current introduction misrepresents the book and its reception. It is what one calls "a hatchet job" and is very much against both the spirit and the letter of wikipedia.81.106.127.14 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the EAA has two classes of membership. Cremo doesn't say what class his membership is so far as I can tell from his website.

You say that "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is not an opinion but an evaluation - that's original research whatever you call it and you cannot infer like that. WP:NOR says clearly " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1]" And that applies to the claim that everything discussed in it is from peer reviewed journals. If you disagree, ask at WP:NORN.

You say we should use a quote from Tim Murray, and I asked you what else he said in his review. How about using this quote instead of yours, "This is a piece of ‘Creation Science’ which, while not based on the need to promote a Christian alternative, manifests many of the same types of argument: first, an attempt to characterize the opposition as motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry; secondly, to explain the currently marginal position of your alternative as being the result of prejudice, conspiracy and manipulation rather than of any fault of the theory itself; thirdly, to present the opposition (in this case mainstream palaeoanthropology and quarternary archaeology) as being united as a ‘secret college’ to manipulate the public mind and to exclude non-professionals from being able to control science for the benefit of all."

As for Tarzia, whatever you think of him, Cremo took him very seriously. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Added NPOV --- the subjects field presentation sounds like there is 0 main stream support. It portrays the subject as 'it vs the world'. It needs some main stream support to balance out the negativity -- if there is any .--Rickbrown9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Did you check? The problem is exmplifified by his statement here about himself (from a chapter in a reliably published source edited by a respectable archaeologist, so he does get published in mainstream sources from time to time) "The author subjectively positions himself within the Vaisnava Hindu world view, and from this perspective offers a radical critique of modern generalizations about human origins and antiquity. Hindu historical literatures, particularly the Puranas and Itihasas, place human existence in the context of repeating time cycles called yugas and kdlpas, lasting hundreds of millions of years. During this entire time, according to the Puranic accounts, humans coexisted with creatures in some ways resembling the earlier tool-making hominids of modern evolutionary accounts." Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adding Murray's positive comments without his negative ones is really NPOV. And there really isn't any mainstream support for his ideas about ancient humans, even if some people think his book is well written, etc. There is interest in his ideas as they represent an aspect of Hinduism, but that's different. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

The following claims would appear be taking Cremo's papers, and making synthetic claims based upon them:

Cremo has presented his findings from the book at mainstream conferences of archeology and history of science, at leading scientific institutions, such as the Royal Institution in London, and some his findings have been published in mainstream academic publications. For example, his paper Puranic Time and the Archeological Record, presented at the 1994 meeting of the World Archaeological Congress, appeared in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings volume edited by archeologist Tim Murray and published by Routledge, a major scientific publisher. The paper incorporates extensive evidence from Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology. Cremo's paper The Discoveries of Carlos Ribeiro, which he presented at a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, was published in a peer reviewed archeological journal.
...
However, it is not a fact that all specimens Cremo mention no longer exist. In Forbidden Archeology, most of the cases he discusses are still in the collections of archeological museums. For example, in his paper on the artifacts of Carlos Ribeiro, Cremo details his research in the collections of the Museum of Geology in Lisbon.

Synthetic claims would appear to include

• Extrapolating a couple of "examples" to "mainstream conferences of archeology and history of science, at leading scientific institutions, such as the Royal Institution in London, and some his findings have been published in mainstream academic publications."
• The claim that the first paper was "presented at the 1994 meeting of the World Archaeological Congress"
• The claim that it was "peer-reviewed"
• The claim that the second paper was "presented at a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists"
• The claim that the second paper contains examples included in Forbidden Archeology.
• The claim that "most of the cases he discusses are still in the collections of archeological museums."

This is problematical given that (i) anything that Cremo actually claims on this would most likely fall afoul of WP:SELFPUB & (ii) most of this appears to be extrapolation of Cremo's claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence was a response to (I believe innocently) quoting of Morrow incompletely, so I've quoted Morrow in full and removed that sentence. Sure, some of the speciments he misinterprets still exist. I'll look at the rest later. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)